People v. Nava CA5

Filed 12/9/24 P. v. Nava CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F087205 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. VCF361905C) v.

FRANCISCO ANTONIO NAVA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Antonio A. Reyes, Judge.

Ross Thomas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez, Kari Ricci Mueller and Amanda D. Cary, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

*Before Peña, Acting P. J., Smith, J. and De Santos, J.

INTRODUCTION A jury convicted defendant Francisco Antonio Nava of shooting into an occupied motor vehicle (Pen. Code, § 246; count 3) and found true allegations a principal used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivisions (c) and (e)(1). The jury also found the crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang within the meaning of former section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C). (Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) Our court previously reversed the gang and firearm use enhancements and remanded the matter to the trial court in People v. Nava (May 2, 2022, F080965 [nonpub. opn.]), in light of the legislative changes enacted by Assembly Bill No. 333 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 333). On remand, the gang and firearm use allegations were retried and the court found them true. The court sentenced defendant to 23 years’ imprisonment, composed of the low term of three years for the substantive offense, plus 20 years for the section 12022.53, subdivisions (c) and (e)(1) firearm enhancement. Defendant appeals from the judgment, arguing the court abused its discretion by failing to reduce or dismiss the firearm enhancement. The People disagree, but they assert we should order the abstract of judgment and sentencing minute order corrected to accurately reflect the oral pronouncement of judgment. We affirm the judgment and direct the court to prepare an amended abstract of judgment and minute order that accurately reflect the oral pronouncement of judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 2019, a jury convicted defendant and his three codefendants of shooting into an occupied motor vehicle (§ 246; count 3) and found true allegations a principal used a firearm during the commission of the offense within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivisions (c) and (e)(1). The jury also found the crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang within the meaning of former section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C). The court originally sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of 15 years